Funny How Copyright Holders Only Ramped Up Google DMCA Takedowns After SOPA Failed

from the why-help-yourself-when-the-government-can-do-it-for-you dept

We recently wrote about the massive increase in DMCA takedown notices concerning Google search results. They increased by a factor of ten in just the past six months. However, Julian Sanchez brought up a point that seems well worth repeating:

Funny how much less they were using Google takedowns before SOPA failed, when they were complaining about all the front-page pirate results.

Indeed. A big part of the argument in favor of SOPA was that it was apparently super easy to find infringing works via Google -- and (the copyright holders claimed) no easy way to get those works removed from Google. However, as the ensuing deluge of DMCA takedown requests shows, perhaps the real reason was that the big studios and labels (many of whom are near the top of the list of DMCA notice senders) apparently didn't want to have to actually do the work required of them under the law. In other words, as many people noted during the SOPA fight, it was a case of the big copyright players running to Congress to get them out of having to do some work. They pretended there were no existing remedies when the reality was they just didn't want to make use of them. It almost makes you wonder if they specifically chose not to make use of those remedies in an attempt to pretend that the situation was worse than it really is...

If we don't protect the few people at the very top of society so that they can continue to rip off the common folk to make billions upon billions of dollars in profits, then by God, the terrorists have already won!

and they are still complaining that there are not enough options to prevent file sharing and they are still doing absolutely sod all to help reduce it anyway. all along, these industries have done all the complaining, none of the work, had none of the expenses involved, paid none of the money gained from suing the very people they rely on to the artists, after insisting these are the ones they are protecting (bullshit!!) and refused to recognise that the wants of the customer is paramount. the only ones they manage to hoodwink with the crap they come out with are politicians, and in the majority of cases that is because of the 'incentives' received rather than actually being stupid!

I wonder how much the media companies are spending on production of DCMA notices. Most of it now seems to be coming through private contractors who are providing mass take-down services to the media companies themselves. I am guessing the media companies are paying pretty well for the service because it seems like everyone and his brother is getting into the DCMA service business.

Has anyone at any of the big media companies done basic ROI calculations on take-down notices? Has anyone from the big recording or movie studios done any study of the effectiveness of their investment in actually reducing piracy or increasing revenue? On second thought, maybe they have. Perhaps they used their overly hyped numbers on piracy's impact (Any cost accountant who actually tried to use accurate numbers would probably be fired.) These are also the people who have accounting systems that say that multi-platinum albums and the second-highest grossing film of all time have not yet turned a profit.

It seems like they would get a much better return if they took the money and just bought a couple more politicians.

However, as the ensuing deluge of DMCA takedown requests shows, perhaps the real reason was that the big studios and labels (many of whom are near the top of the list of DMCA notice senders) apparently didn't want to have to actually do the work required of them under the law. In other words, as many people noted during the SOPA fight, it was a case of the big copyright players running to Congress to get them out of having to do some work.

I'm not seeing the connection. What does SOPA have to do with DMCA takedown notices?

Re: Re:

Zero might be overly optimistic. It is possible the ROI is negative because many times they are removing what is effectively promotional material. Thus every dollar spent on DCMA notices is actually depressing their sales.

My point was, have any of those highly paid executives even thought to have an honest ROI ananysis done?

Re: Re:

But you're not making sense. How does sending less takedown notices to Google have anything to do with the remedies that SOPA would have made available, such as injunctions against payment processors and advertising networks, DNS blocking, etc.? SOPA's remedies were in addition to the power to send takedown notices. Every single person knew that takedown notices existed, so it's not like they were pulling a fast one by not sending as many notices. This article is just more FUD. I really wonder why someone as smart as Mike wastes his time with this conspiracy theory nonsense. I guess people like you eat it up.

MAFIAA you can lick my Dog's Ass ! I will never allow you to get into my wallet and will make sure to treat you just like you have treated us Consumers.
You are so full of shit I can smell Hollywood 3,000 miles away !

Re: Re: Re:

But you're not making sense. How does sending less takedown notices to Google have anything to do with the remedies that SOPA would have made available, such as injunctions against payment processors and advertising networks, DNS blocking, etc.?

You conveniently left out the key one, which is why this post makes sense: it also would have barred search engines from linking to those sites.

That was a key reason given for why SOPA was needed.

This article is just more FUD

And yet you are the one ignoring what was in the bill or the arguments made by supporters of the bill against Google.